IMO, Andrew was spot on with his answer/analysis to DWPs letter to him. And to his credit, he handled this delicate and politically charged matter with diplomacy, facts and logic. Unfortunately, the Fundamentalist inerrant beliefs eschew facts and logic and fall entirely on faith. A blind obedient faith, not unlike that of the Taliban. Because, as Andrew also points out (I'm using my own words here), to have an inerrant view is to reject the accumulated scientific knowledge of the human race. So much for facts and logic.
Frankly, I don't understand how any educated and otherwise intelligent person could have this view. I'm sure it has something to do with some psychological need but not being a trained psychologist, I can't imagine what that need might be.
Certainly, the teachings of Jesus (love, peace, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness) have virtually nothing to do with current Fundamentalist beliefs. Are we to assume, then, that their beliefs are in a book, written by committees of men and edited by more committees of men, over a period of centuries, has more value to them than a belief in a divine spirit? Either way, trying to reason with people like this is, at very best, an exercise in futility but good try Andrew.
Andrew further talks about the Jesus PR job and from my readings, that's exactly what it was. The Romans were highly tolerant of the myriad religions and cults (168 by some accounts) being practiced in their empire. As long as there was no public nuisance, it was 'live and let live. At the time, central to many of these groups was the Messiah mythology. Jesus preached a good message and had a nice thing going, with a number of followers. But to really put his ministry over the top, he and his inner core (including Judas) had to play to that mythology and (remember...this is my opinion) concocted the resurrection, which is the basis of Christianity. Without the resurrection, there's no religion. Of course, to do that, he had to become enough of a public nuisance to get the attention of the bankers and the Romans, so he would be publicly executed and ultimately "resurrected". He gave up his life and endured a horrible death and changed the world.
Personally, I don't see any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in science, because I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. If you put all of today's quantum physicists together, you have no impact on their string M theories in trying to explain infinity. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientific mind since Isaac Newton, had an unshakeable belief in God. When confronted with the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, a cornerstone of quantum physics, he declared, "God doesn't play dice with the universe". (Experiments have shown that Einstein was wrong about the uncertainty principal but that has nothing to do with his belief in God.)
At some point, you have to sit back and say, OK...I don't know. At that point, is God. Not, IMO, the God of the Christians or the God of the Jews or anyone else's Good Book God...just God. Eternal and Infinite. As to inerrantcy...it takes all kinds.
Peace and love,